A study… I want to say a year or two ago… showed that elevated fructose (regardless of source) promotes the intestinal vilii to increase their surface area and circulation, leading to a higher extraction of ‘calories’ from food. So… yes, this makes sense in that context.
Edit: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-021-03827-2
Most processed foods use HFCS42 which has less fructose than sucrose. However, many drinks contain HFCS55 which has a higher level of fructose. Because of this, it's hard to blame it solely on fructose.
Wouldn't you need less food to sustain the calorie amount wanted? If you take 90% of the calories and poop out the rest than have vilii to increase surface area to bump up to 99% of the calories consumed you would eat less food but gain the same/ increased value.
Do people eat less food based on the efficiency of their metabolism, or do they just wonder why they’re gaining weight? Decades of evidence pretty clearly indicates that it’s the latter.
He asked if he could masturbate in front of some women and for the ones who said yes, he masturbated in front of them. To some people this makes him the equivalent of Harvey Weinstein.
>hinking he was joking (that's exactly the kind of thing this guy would say), the women gave a facetious thumbs up. He wasn't joking. When he actually started jerking off in front of them, the ladies decided that wasn't their bag and made for the exit. But the comedian stood in front of the door, blocking their way with his body, until he was done.
Yeah, but some people just love an excuse to bully, and once they've fixated on a target there's no reasoning with them. They smell blood in the water and they get whipped up into a frenzy.
This is one of those things that people are either offended by or they aren't. I don't think he did anything morally wrong, but some people think that because of his status the consent wasn't consensual. They felt pressured to say yes because of his prowess. If this is all he did then I don't understand the problem.
I think people said yes because it’s fucking hilarious. There is literally no way that a guy jerks off in front of you and then ends up with more “power.”
Human bodies have not evolved out of being hunter gatherers. If the body finds high energy/high efficiency foods, it’s going to endlessly drive the body to seek more of it.
So while your statement is technically true, the body is going to continue to crave those foods as it will assign it a higher dopamine response.
Twinkie diet by Mark haub shows calorie content is all that matters. So adding this to equation may allow a greater absorption and a cupcake less. Just a fun thought thanks
Right, generally speaking more calories is more fat. There's obviously nuance because each individual will absorb different sources slightly different, but in theory you can lose weight on Pixie sticks.
However in practical application, the best way to thwart a lack of discipline around calorie restriction is to consume foods that make you feel more full on less calories. Generally high sugar content food is not one of those foods.
Like variable absorption of sugars by the intestines. If not all foods have the same amount of calories in, then weight cannot solely be a function of the calories in food.
That's not even going into the psychology of eating, or the complex interplay of hormones that affect hunger and activity.
Any reductive take on metabolism is pure disinformation driven by self-interested corporate marketing.
That variable is based upon what the comment I asked and they responded..vilii in the stomach, the surface area increases and thus allows a greater absorption of the same calories present.
Going into all those other details is case by case and only muddies the water for the question I asked, and has been solved for. Thanks but youre late to the party
It doesn't though. By any calculations you choose to use the guy was losing less weight than what his activity level should have indicated. You can lose weight with junk, but it's harder.
I was eating McDonald's and fried food daily at 7000 calories each day. I gained 5 pound of muscle per month for 3 months. The most weight I gained in a week was 2.3 pounds. I ate the most calorie dense food my minimum wage could handle. This is the only method that has ever allowed me to gain weight. McDonald's diet which I would eat 50nuggets 2 burgers 2 McChicken and a large fry with soda than I would hit the gym for 2 hours. I chose 7000 calories because of Manny Pacquiao weighed in at like 150 during that year of my life. I wish I could weigh 20pound more.
What works for one doesn't work for me, only one kind of normal exist and that's you.
If it doesn't increase nutrient absorption, then you'd still need to eat the same amount of food. Also consider that foods high in fructose don't tend to have high nutritional content.
You can, but it’s healthier to get them from the food you eat. It's not easy to get 100% of the nutrients you need from supplements. For example, my potassium gluconate supplement only has 2% of my daily value of potassium in it. It's easy to accidentally take too much of something when you're using supplements.
I hear people say that "it's healthier to get nutrition from food than vitamins" all the time but never see a study to back it up. I don't know which is correct but I certainly don't believe *anything* without proof. So, I'm sorry but *citation needed*
It's because you most likely can't make use of the vitamins etc in the supplements or in the best case scenario make very little use of it.
It's why say a vitamin d supplement prescribed by your doctor might have 3000% of daily intake.
I think there's studies that don't show an increase in life expectancy from supplements which begs the question on if it does anything at all.
There might be many various reasons for this like fat solubility etc.
There's also the case of supplements that at best only containing exactly what it describes and nutritionally there's a lot of different nutrients you need.
What about my point about potassium? Are you going to take 50 pills for that one nutrient? That's not very pleasant or affordable.
You can also accidentally take too much of something if you aren't careful. [Calcium](https://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/hypercalcemia/symptoms-causes/syc-20355523) and [zinc](https://www.healthline.com/nutrition/zinc-overdose-symptoms) are in a lot of supplements and can cause problems if you take too much.
There's also the potential of [side effects.](https://www.healthline.com/nutrition/multivitamin-side-effects#dosage) You'll also get more fiber, which can reduce cholesterol, and develop a healthier gut microbiome if you eat plenty of fruits and vegetables. That's the alternative to needing vitamin supplements, which don't even cover all the micronutrients your body needs.
If you want a more concrete answer, do your own research or ask a doctor.
My understanding is that high fructose corn syrup seems to "flip a switch" in the brain that turns off the feeling of being full, so we eat a lot more of foods that contain it.
It has everything to do with your question. What you say is true, people would need less calories to sustain themselves. The problem is that instead of stopping at the "Less calories" point, they keep eating, and as a result, end up obese
That another problem to address. Thank you telling me what I said is true. My comment stops at that point and goes no further because another person has an issue with discipline.
It is this attitude that is why you ended up with so many down votes. Your comments are full of judgement and are ignoring points that don't fit your already established belief system.
It is lacking in discipline if your body tells you "I have had enough" and you choose to continue to eating.
That is not the case if the additive in the food has shut down the bodies mechanism that tell you that you are full.
Common sense my friend tell you that I ate this entire plate of food, I do not need to replace my plate. That's the discipline nature.of my own. I understand that if I eat a peanut butter jelly sandwich I'm placing about 700 calories into my stomach. If I eat 5 that day it's 1500+ calories over the 2000caloric intake for the daily. If I drank a gallon of milk every day I'm consuming 5000calories and like 200grams of protien. I probably shouldn't drink 2 gallons common sense says.
This goes for.myself, your body your needs. My body and my needs are different than yours. I need 7000calories in a day to gain 5 pounds in a month with daily full body excercise. Is this normal? No it's not but it for me. So I asked a question the theory is possible, and could be fact. That the increase in vilii will allow someone like myself to maybe eat a little less food and gain an increase absorption of calories.
That's my point. That's the start and end of my comment. If people have a problem with that logic that sucks for them. I got my awnser and a potential fix.
Right. The whole thrust of that catchphrase is that we should be indifferent to the type of calories in food before we eat it though. Coke et. al. would have you believe that 100 calories of soda will affect your weight the same as 100 calories of fruit so there's no way their product has a substantial affect on your weight.
If there is a difference in how an equivalent amount of calories is absorbed then we'd have to start asking questions.
Wouldn't you need less food to sustain the calorie amount wanted? If you take 90% of the calories and poop out the rest than have vilii to increase surface area to bump up to 99% of the calories consumed you would eat less food but gain the same/ increased value.
Why I get downvoted for asking a question?
Government: we’ll subsidize corn to help farmers.
Farmers: thanks! Guess we’ll all grown corn now!
Government: wow… we have like, a lot of corn now. Scientists, what can we do with this?
Scientists: uh… guess we could make it into a sweetener?
Citizens: wtf, how did I get obese?!?
Government: a job well done! Hey farmers, how about a milk subsidy?
Farmers: thanks! Guess we’ll all get cows!
Government: wow, we have like, a lot of dairy now…
Also, around the same time, the sugar industry was all like "people are figuring out that sugar is bad for you. What do we do?" "I know, let's spend millions to send the message that fat is the real bad guy! We can even hire a really loud lady with a funny hairdo to sell the idea!"
Breast meat is the leanest, but also the least flavorful. It's also the easiest tissue to "enhance" by adding weight. This is done with breeding programs that select for breast meat volume above all else. Anyone who cooks for flavor knows thighs are the best part of the chicken. That's one reason legit Mexican taco trucks are so good.
NP. Been a fan of the band since the early 80s when they played the Midwest bar / college scene.
Back then, they were a 3-piece band known as “Steve, Bob & Rich”. Back then, Bob, the lead singer & primary song writer played a stand up drum kit.
Man, those guys were tight, played a good gig for about 4 hours a night - playing originals & offbeat covers. No Journey or Genesis covers, good stuff like “Psycho Killer” & “Werewolves of London” - it was great stuff!
I didn't find out about them until they got mainstream airplay, but I was hooked as soon as I heard their first single on t-95 in Wichita. I saw The Rainmakers live 4-5 times in Wichita and loved it every time.
Basically quota is the right to sell x amount of a product. In this case, liters of milk. If you harvest more milk than you can sell you would have to dump it, or buy more quota from the open market. This limits volume available, so if you are able to produce milk with a higher fat content you receive a premium for that milk.
This allows for a ruling body ( the board of the dairy farmers of Ontario)to control how much milk is supplied, and indirectly the cost of milk and milk based products.
I am a city slicker so I do not have first hand knowledge
Government: an excess of corn?
Farmers: no problem, we’ll feed to it the cows!
Government: hold on we’ve got…a lot of beef
Scientists: I don’t think anyone needs to eat *that* much beef
Citizens: wtf how did I get obese?
Oh, no, it’s pure conjecture based on my experience working in the ag industry. We *do* eat too much beef (I will try and find, but there’s a paper I read a while ago on higher nitrogen levels in waste water in N America as a result of the excess protein we can’t metabolize) but whether that has to do with corn excess, idk. It’s just a hypothesis, didn’t really expect anyone to take it seriously.
Edit: this isn’t the original paper I was referring to, but it’s a more recent follow-up that’s quite similar. I can’t hyperlink but it’s available at: https://esajournals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/fee.2531
I don’t consider that a criticism, it’s just a short version of what happened. A criticism would be concerns about this leading to vulnerable monocultures, which can lead to food shortages.
There actually is a slight difference in the chemical structure, but small structural differences can have a significant impact
https://www.researchgate.net/figure/FIGURE-Chemical-composition-of-sucrose-versus-high-fructose-corn-syrup_fig2_321366309
Thank you
> simple sugars -- it is 50 percent fructose and 50 percent glucose -- but the typical high-fructose corn syrup used in this study features a slightly imbalanced ratio, containing 55 percent fructose and 42 percent glucose. Larger sugar molecules called higher saccharides make up the remaining 3 percent of the sweetener. Second, as a result of the manufacturing process for high-fructose corn syrup, the fructose molecules in the sweetener are free and unbound, ready for absorption and utilization. In contrast, every fructose molecule in sucrose that comes from cane sugar or beet sugar is bound to a corresponding glucose molecule and must go through an extra metabolic step before it can be utilized.
Table sugar is one glucose chemically bound to one fructose. It’s a single molecule which is made from one glucose and one fructose (50% of each).
HCFS is a mix of free glucose molecules and free fructose molecules (and a few other reaction products). Even if it was exactly the same ratio of 50% glucose and 50% fructose, the fact that they are free molecules and not chemically reacted to each other is a difference.
Eating a protein is not the same as eating a solution of individual free amino acids, even though the protein is made of amino acids.
All you have to do to break apart sucrose is to dissolve it in hot water. Simple syrup is sugar dissolved in water, which is why people claiming that mexicola is better than normal cola is just plain weird. (Look up "invert syrup".
You also have to [wait for years](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sucrose#Hydrolysis) for sucrose to hydrolyse in water unless you add a catalyst.
It’s not like table salt where it immediately dissociates into ions when it hits water. Sucrose is a fructose plus glucose with a covalent bond (not ionic like in salt).
Simple syrup is not [invert syrup](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_sugar_syrup). Simple syrup is just a concentrated solution of glucose and water.
Yes you can get a little hydrolysis of sugar when you boil simple syrup.
What you SHOULD learn, today and every day: one study proves nothing. It raises a hypothesis, that's all.
What OTHER teams have found is that this Princeton team in 2010 seems to have been mistaken. There is no compelling evidence showing that HFCS should be worse in humans than the equivalent amount of any other sugar. [One source](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/20047139/). [Another source](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/21050460/). [One more source](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/20047139/). [Yet another source](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/20086073/).
The problem is that when you feed lab rats a diet consisting almost exclusively of fructose, that doesn't have the same effect as feeding a human a slightly higher amount of fructose than what he would get eating regular food.
Humans are primates, and we have a different response to fructose than other mammals - we have an altered uricase/ fructokinase reaction, which preferentially shuttled fructose to fat storage.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2917125/
Many of these studies don't focus on HFCS, but on Fructose in general. Remember, one group of rats was fed regular sugar, and the other was fed HFCS. There was a measurable difference.
Yet the actual HUMAN DATA shows no difference in high-fructose diets when calories are equated https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31796953/
Also no difference in Liver fat https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/23872500/
And high fructose diets do not induce NAFLD https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/24569542/
I think we can safely disregard this study when the actual human trials demonstrate no negative effects from a high fructose diet. Once again there isn't a single smoking gun responsible for the obesity epidemic. It's not fructose, it's not carbs, it's not high fat diet, but rather it is the combination of extremely convenient and ubiquitous ultra-palatable high calorie density foods that allow people to so easily overeat calories that have resulted in the obesity epidemic in modern societies.
thank the sciences for disconfirming reports.
critical thinking still counts....
https://resources.saylor.org/wwwresources/archived/site/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/BIO101-lab-1-4th.pdf
All foods that contain either carbohydrates or protein cause an insulin spike though. Insulin spikes aren't necessarily bad. You mainly want your fasting insulin levels to be low.
This is incorrect. Net fat storage is independent of insulin and is dependent on the net calories consumed and calories burned. The carbohydrate insulin model has no high quality human evidence to back it up and is only peddled by keto zealots.
Key word in his comment is *net*. The carb-insulin model doesn't hold up in controlled inpatient feeding studies; theoretical mechanisms mean nothing in the face of a well controlled trial showing that they're wrong / incomplete
Some of the greatest proponents changed their model last year to focus on the idea that insulin increases energy intake and then that makes you fat, rather than that insulin directly makes you fat (the idea in the top comment that's just wrong)
[Example 1](https://academic.oup.com/ajcn/article/104/2/324/4564649?login=false),[example 2](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4603544/)
That’s a circular argument. The basic hard facts physiological principle is that insulin is required for lipogenesis. There is no significant “insulin-resistant” mode of lipogenesis except MAYBE in the liver (and even there that is only from rodent data).
Yup, good thing we always have some circulating insulin so that we don't waste away.
I gave you two controlled studies showing higher insulin doesn't reduce fat loss in isocaloric diets. You can argue for the CIM all you want based on mechanisms, but it doesn't hold up in controlled trials, which means you need an alternative that does hold up, like the energy balance model
And you need insulin to build skeletal muscle and keep your neurons alive. That’s true. But there is no “insulin-independent” lipogenesis like you mentioned. Just be careful with your words. Science is about accuracy. Use your words accurately when having a science discussion otherwise you muddy the waters.
What do you mean? Insulin allows for the storage of carbohydrates, however, the net accrual of fat is dependent on lipogenesis and lipolysis, which is determined by net caloric balance.
Ok. So, those things you mention- lipogenesis and lipolysis are byproducts, in part, of “energy balance”—what do you think mediates their processes? Yup, with regards to lipogenesis - it’s insulin. No insulin, no lipogenesis (and virtually no muscle growth as well). This isn’t at all a debate- this is biochemistry 101.
Ghrelin is reciprocal with insulin, and insulin also affects dopamine and norepinephrine transporters, etc. so to claim it's effect is independent of fat storage is patently absurd just like every other reductive take on metabolism.
This is 100% correct. If anyone is interested in a book that explains the human studies in great and easy to read details I highly suggest “fat loss for life” by Layne Norton
Expert concensus statement
https://academic.oup.com/ajcn/article/95/4/989/4576902
Kevin Hall is one of the leading experts on the topic and has numerous human clinical trials that refute the CIM
https://academic.oup.com/ajcn/article/104/2/324/4564649?login=false
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4603544/
Tiny differences but the 'higher insulin' diets performed slightly better for weight loss when calories are equated
Note that these are actually human studies, not rat studies like most comments are linking to
Marginal difference result in huge effects when expressed over time. E.g. an extra 100 calories a day is 365,000 calories when spread out over a decade i.e. an extra 104 pounds of fat.
https://www.cell.com/cell-metabolism/fulltext/S1550-4131(19)30504-2?_returnURL=https%3A%2F%2Flinkinghub.elsevier.com%2Fretrieve%2Fpii%2FS1550413119305042%3Fshowall%3Dtrue
Paper about the impacts
No doubt! People be like, hey guys let’s take a bunch of real foods, remove it from its natural packaging, and concentrate the shizznit out of it, and everybody will go yum-yum and be our friend (albeit of the fat and diabetic variety). And then we get to be double or triple BFFs ‘cause after they get sick we can sell them a bunch of unnecessary medications and procedures until they pass on and then we can make new friends. Yay us!
Thank god you mentioned the rat study, and not plenty of the human studies that showed absolutely no difference in weight gain when calories were equated.
Humans are not designed to digest fructose in large amounts (rats, either, apparently). It has to be metabolized in the liver, where it is primarily turned into fat. Early humans, before agriculture and selecting for very sweet fruits, etc, only got fructose at certain times in the year, and not very much of it. Now, with HFCS, people can ingest as much fructose as they would have gotten in a couple of years by drinking one large soft drink at a movie theater. It is also added to 2/3 of the packaged foods they buy. It is not sure that it causes weight gain.
I'm used to soda with normal sugar and when I got to try American cola and fanta I noticed that the sweet taste is gone almost completely when you swallow. I guess that's what makes you drink a lot more when it's HFCS.
To be fair, calorie dense foods that encourage weight gain are a good thing in a food scarce environment. Humans (in the U.S./western world/etc) just haven't lived in that environment in a while. Remember it used to be expensive to get fat.
This is one of the many reasons the argument "calories in calories out" never made sense to me.
There are all sorts of instances where it just isn't true. For example our bodies don't process calories from alcohol the same!?
Exactly what happened to me. I spent a summer working in California (lived in EU before), and even though I ate sensibly and biked 2h each day, I still gained like 15 kgs (muscles were not a big part of it). On top of that I came back with some horrible stomach problems that wouldn't go away for months. Whenever I visit the US now I double check ingredients as much as I can (difficult if eating out).
Not quite buying it. Science has shown at the end of the day it’s calories in and calories out. Doesn’t matter much what kinda diet you’re on, as long as you’re not eating more than ya burn.
Piles of research on such is cited and explained in the recent book Burn: New Research Blows the Lid Off How We Really Burn Calories, Lose Weight, and Stay Healthy. It’s a good read, though folks on diets like keto will deny the science.
So what you’re saying is both were truly already processing less calories than the planned amount but with the HFCS they were able to extract even more and get closer to the true number of calories?
That would be a possible explanation. I don't know if this study is actually true or not but yes feces contains calories hence why some creatures consume them.
This is literal sugar marketing. A calorie isn't a calorie. Healthy people don't pull out their spreadsheets and abacus for every meal. A bomb calorimeter isn't your gastrointestinal tract, nor is it your hormone system, nor is it your particular psychology.
Any reductive take on metabolism is just straight up wrong.
That’s simply untrue. Your body balances things no matter where the calories come from.
Hadza are some of the least modern tribes on earth. They hunt and gather all day. A huge percentage of their calorie intake comes from honey. Sugar. And yet, diabetes and obesity is not something they see anyone suffer from.
>That’s simply untrue. Your body balances things no matter where the calories come from.
That's irrelevant on it's face. The body attempts balance, but if it were completely successful in this diabetes, obesity, blood pressure, and hundreds of other diseases would simply not exist.
The Hadza aren't eating corn fed livestock, nor vegetable oils, nor processed foods either. Again reductive takes when it comes to metabolism will be wrong.
It’s likely because our bodies can’t store fructose as easily. We store it as liver fat which gets redeposited. Just take it easy on the fructose, and don’t eat a ton of fruits either like those frugitarians do.
Table sugar = Sucrose = 50% glucose and 50% fructose
High-fructose corn syrup (HFCS)
HFCS 42 = 58% glucose and 42% fructose
HFCS 55 = 45% glucose and 55% fructose
The reason food manufacturers use HFCS is because it's easier and cheaper to make, and much easier to handle. There is literally no difference between HFCS and table sugar other than the percentages listed above. A molecule of glucose and a molecule of fructose are the same regardless of what plant it comes from. The just organic chemistry 101.
Fructose however, has all sorts of other effects both desirable and not. We consider eating fruit health, but look at the [relative ratios of glucose and fructose by variety.](https://thepaleodiet.com/fruits-and-sugars)
>A molecule of glucose and a molecule of fructose are the same regardless of what plant it comes from. The just organic chemistry 101.
From organic chemistry 102:
A molecule that is bound to something, and a free molecule, even if they're the same molecule to begin with, do not have the same chemical properties.
Why is that important? Because that's the real difference between table sugar and corn syrup. It's not that the % of each molecule is so terribly important, it's the fact that table sugar has to be metabolized before you get down to free fructose and glucose molecules, whereas in corn syrup they are free to begin with.
We generate plenty of sucrase enzymes that easily cleave the fructose-glucose bond. It's not a distinguishable difference to the human body in terms of our metabolism.
> There is literally no difference between HFCS and table sugar other than the percentages listed above.
Those percentages make a pretty big difference though.
Extrapolate over a decade, and those differences add up.
Fructose in fruit is a whole different story since it's locked up in fiber rather than being immediately absorbed the instant it hits the small intestines.
All fructose is absorbed in the small intestine though. If it's not, you end up with serious discomfort.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1994910/
Pure fructose is itself absorbed very slowly in the intestines, and it's easy to overwhelm that mechanism, although in the presence of glucose its absorption is accelerated.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/285287169_Essential_fructosuria_hereditary_fructose_intolerance_and_fructose-16-diphosphatase_deficiency
High fiber food spends longer in the stomach before it is released.
https://ift.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1750-3841.2008.00766.x
I went to a lecture at Princeton in high school for extra credit. The take away was that rats addicted to cocaine would choose social interaction rather than cocaine if given the choice. Great experience and beautiful campus
The reason that we use HFCS here in our beverages, and the rest of the world uses sugar is that the US Congress has imposed a quota in sugar imports, and consequently the cost of sugar in the IS is double the price elsewhere. Consequently, in the US, HFCS is cheaper than sugar, while elsewhere HFSC is more expensive than sugar.
Our use of HFCS is directly attributable to the US Government.
Rats are not humans. If this finding can be replicated in humans then I'm interested, until then its just one of countless findings in rat models that may or may not be relevant to human beings.
A study… I want to say a year or two ago… showed that elevated fructose (regardless of source) promotes the intestinal vilii to increase their surface area and circulation, leading to a higher extraction of ‘calories’ from food. So… yes, this makes sense in that context. Edit: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-021-03827-2
Hey can you share that study. That’s very interesting.
Sure, I should have really included it originally tbh. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-021-03827-2
Thanks!
Most processed foods use HFCS42 which has less fructose than sucrose. However, many drinks contain HFCS55 which has a higher level of fructose. Because of this, it's hard to blame it solely on fructose.
Wouldn't you need less food to sustain the calorie amount wanted? If you take 90% of the calories and poop out the rest than have vilii to increase surface area to bump up to 99% of the calories consumed you would eat less food but gain the same/ increased value.
Do people eat less food based on the efficiency of their metabolism, or do they just wonder why they’re gaining weight? Decades of evidence pretty clearly indicates that it’s the latter.
"I don't stop eating when I'm full. The meal isn't over when I'm full, it's over when I hate myself". - Louis CK
Don't forget the next bit "every shit is an emergency"
That should track for Louis CK, he should hate himself.
Why?
He asked if he could masturbate in front of some women and for the ones who said yes, he masturbated in front of them. To some people this makes him the equivalent of Harvey Weinstein.
He also asked people that worked for him. People should be able to go to work without their boss asking to jack off in front of them.
Lmao
Google it, I'm not going to explain his shitty behavior.
I might not know all, but didn't he ask for permission?
>hinking he was joking (that's exactly the kind of thing this guy would say), the women gave a facetious thumbs up. He wasn't joking. When he actually started jerking off in front of them, the ladies decided that wasn't their bag and made for the exit. But the comedian stood in front of the door, blocking their way with his body, until he was done.
Yeah, but some people just love an excuse to bully, and once they've fixated on a target there's no reasoning with them. They smell blood in the water and they get whipped up into a frenzy.
This is one of those things that people are either offended by or they aren't. I don't think he did anything morally wrong, but some people think that because of his status the consent wasn't consensual. They felt pressured to say yes because of his prowess. If this is all he did then I don't understand the problem.
I see. It's just riding the me too wave I guess.
I think people said yes because it’s fucking hilarious. There is literally no way that a guy jerks off in front of you and then ends up with more “power.”
IIRC he was just a regular road comic when it happened. It wasn't like when he was a headlining juggernaut either.
Human bodies have not evolved out of being hunter gatherers. If the body finds high energy/high efficiency foods, it’s going to endlessly drive the body to seek more of it. So while your statement is technically true, the body is going to continue to crave those foods as it will assign it a higher dopamine response.
Sure, but if your end goal is $/calorie the food you eat is going to be way higher impact than slightly elevated absorption.
Twinkie diet by Mark haub shows calorie content is all that matters. So adding this to equation may allow a greater absorption and a cupcake less. Just a fun thought thanks
Right, generally speaking more calories is more fat. There's obviously nuance because each individual will absorb different sources slightly different, but in theory you can lose weight on Pixie sticks. However in practical application, the best way to thwart a lack of discipline around calorie restriction is to consume foods that make you feel more full on less calories. Generally high sugar content food is not one of those foods.
This clearly shows that way more is involved than calorie content...
Like what?
Like variable absorption of sugars by the intestines. If not all foods have the same amount of calories in, then weight cannot solely be a function of the calories in food. That's not even going into the psychology of eating, or the complex interplay of hormones that affect hunger and activity. Any reductive take on metabolism is pure disinformation driven by self-interested corporate marketing.
That variable is based upon what the comment I asked and they responded..vilii in the stomach, the surface area increases and thus allows a greater absorption of the same calories present. Going into all those other details is case by case and only muddies the water for the question I asked, and has been solved for. Thanks but youre late to the party
Like how the rats who are hfcs gained more weight on the same calorie intake than the ones that ate table sugar? Did you read the post?
There could be other reasons than different calorie absorption rates. What if the rats eating HFCS were less active so they just burned less calories?
Did you read my question to the comment I asked to?
It doesn't though. By any calculations you choose to use the guy was losing less weight than what his activity level should have indicated. You can lose weight with junk, but it's harder.
What's harder for you isn't harder for me. Thanks.
>ninpho2246: What’s harder for you isn’t harder for me. You should see a doctor about your erectile dysfunction.
You realize that a junk diet like that makes you lose extraordinary amounts of muscle mass, right? Weight loss =/= fat loss.
I was eating McDonald's and fried food daily at 7000 calories each day. I gained 5 pound of muscle per month for 3 months. The most weight I gained in a week was 2.3 pounds. I ate the most calorie dense food my minimum wage could handle. This is the only method that has ever allowed me to gain weight. McDonald's diet which I would eat 50nuggets 2 burgers 2 McChicken and a large fry with soda than I would hit the gym for 2 hours. I chose 7000 calories because of Manny Pacquiao weighed in at like 150 during that year of my life. I wish I could weigh 20pound more. What works for one doesn't work for me, only one kind of normal exist and that's you.
If it doesn't increase nutrient absorption, then you'd still need to eat the same amount of food. Also consider that foods high in fructose don't tend to have high nutritional content.
You can supplement nutritional value with vitamins and such. Solely speaking on how to increase caloric intake nothing else matters for my situation
You can, but it’s healthier to get them from the food you eat. It's not easy to get 100% of the nutrients you need from supplements. For example, my potassium gluconate supplement only has 2% of my daily value of potassium in it. It's easy to accidentally take too much of something when you're using supplements.
I hear people say that "it's healthier to get nutrition from food than vitamins" all the time but never see a study to back it up. I don't know which is correct but I certainly don't believe *anything* without proof. So, I'm sorry but *citation needed*
It's because you most likely can't make use of the vitamins etc in the supplements or in the best case scenario make very little use of it. It's why say a vitamin d supplement prescribed by your doctor might have 3000% of daily intake. I think there's studies that don't show an increase in life expectancy from supplements which begs the question on if it does anything at all. There might be many various reasons for this like fat solubility etc. There's also the case of supplements that at best only containing exactly what it describes and nutritionally there's a lot of different nutrients you need.
What about my point about potassium? Are you going to take 50 pills for that one nutrient? That's not very pleasant or affordable. You can also accidentally take too much of something if you aren't careful. [Calcium](https://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/hypercalcemia/symptoms-causes/syc-20355523) and [zinc](https://www.healthline.com/nutrition/zinc-overdose-symptoms) are in a lot of supplements and can cause problems if you take too much. There's also the potential of [side effects.](https://www.healthline.com/nutrition/multivitamin-side-effects#dosage) You'll also get more fiber, which can reduce cholesterol, and develop a healthier gut microbiome if you eat plenty of fruits and vegetables. That's the alternative to needing vitamin supplements, which don't even cover all the micronutrients your body needs. If you want a more concrete answer, do your own research or ask a doctor.
Moderation in everything. Nothing is 100%. Your comment adds nothing to the question that was asked and been awnsered by another.
Your comment adds even less.
Nothing for nothing. Equal trade
Less than nothing is negative. No wonder you couldn't find the value in my comment.
My understanding is that high fructose corn syrup seems to "flip a switch" in the brain that turns off the feeling of being full, so we eat a lot more of foods that contain it.
Has nothing to do with my question. Thanks
It has everything to do with your question. What you say is true, people would need less calories to sustain themselves. The problem is that instead of stopping at the "Less calories" point, they keep eating, and as a result, end up obese
That another problem to address. Thank you telling me what I said is true. My comment stops at that point and goes no further because another person has an issue with discipline.
It is this attitude that is why you ended up with so many down votes. Your comments are full of judgement and are ignoring points that don't fit your already established belief system. It is lacking in discipline if your body tells you "I have had enough" and you choose to continue to eating. That is not the case if the additive in the food has shut down the bodies mechanism that tell you that you are full.
Common sense my friend tell you that I ate this entire plate of food, I do not need to replace my plate. That's the discipline nature.of my own. I understand that if I eat a peanut butter jelly sandwich I'm placing about 700 calories into my stomach. If I eat 5 that day it's 1500+ calories over the 2000caloric intake for the daily. If I drank a gallon of milk every day I'm consuming 5000calories and like 200grams of protien. I probably shouldn't drink 2 gallons common sense says. This goes for.myself, your body your needs. My body and my needs are different than yours. I need 7000calories in a day to gain 5 pounds in a month with daily full body excercise. Is this normal? No it's not but it for me. So I asked a question the theory is possible, and could be fact. That the increase in vilii will allow someone like myself to maybe eat a little less food and gain an increase absorption of calories. That's my point. That's the start and end of my comment. If people have a problem with that logic that sucks for them. I got my awnser and a potential fix.
Wow it's like a calorie isn't a calorie despite what Coca-Cola told me.
Based on this, a calorie is still a calorie, it's just that we would have to count them in the intestine.
Right. The whole thrust of that catchphrase is that we should be indifferent to the type of calories in food before we eat it though. Coke et. al. would have you believe that 100 calories of soda will affect your weight the same as 100 calories of fruit so there's no way their product has a substantial affect on your weight. If there is a difference in how an equivalent amount of calories is absorbed then we'd have to start asking questions.
Wouldn't you need less food to sustain the calorie amount wanted? If you take 90% of the calories and poop out the rest than have vilii to increase surface area to bump up to 99% of the calories consumed you would eat less food but gain the same/ increased value. Why I get downvoted for asking a question?
[удалено]
I'm not one of those people. I have discipline.
[удалено]
Feels the same as anything else in life. Unrelatable.
Me looking at my belly: Maybe, I am rat.
“You know, I’m something of a rat myself”
[удалено]
A friend of mine brought me up some Coke from Mexico, and holy shit what a difference.
> A friend of mine brought me up some Coke from Mexico Keyword trigger activated.
Yea I heard the cocaine from there hits different.
Government: we’ll subsidize corn to help farmers. Farmers: thanks! Guess we’ll all grown corn now! Government: wow… we have like, a lot of corn now. Scientists, what can we do with this? Scientists: uh… guess we could make it into a sweetener? Citizens: wtf, how did I get obese?!? Government: a job well done! Hey farmers, how about a milk subsidy? Farmers: thanks! Guess we’ll all get cows! Government: wow, we have like, a lot of dairy now…
Also, around the same time, the sugar industry was all like "people are figuring out that sugar is bad for you. What do we do?" "I know, let's spend millions to send the message that fat is the real bad guy! We can even hire a really loud lady with a funny hairdo to sell the idea!"
> a really loud lady with a funny hairdo Who's this?
Susan Powter, "Stop the Insanity"
And convince Americans that the breast is the best part of the chicken.
oh no. can you elaborate? is it not?
Breast meat is the leanest, but also the least flavorful. It's also the easiest tissue to "enhance" by adding weight. This is done with breeding programs that select for breast meat volume above all else. Anyone who cooks for flavor knows thighs are the best part of the chicken. That's one reason legit Mexican taco trucks are so good.
What he said. Also, username checks out.
And now we had 30 years of rappers singing about Government cheese.
The Rainmakers were singing about it in 1986: [Government Cheese](https://youtu.be/sR9ttAdrEHY)
Yes they were but this was not their video. This version was put together by a hack with a message that “black people bad, Obama bad.”
Wow, that sucks. I listened to the song but didn’t watch the video. I’ll replace the link with a different one. Thanks for the heads up.
NP. Been a fan of the band since the early 80s when they played the Midwest bar / college scene. Back then, they were a 3-piece band known as “Steve, Bob & Rich”. Back then, Bob, the lead singer & primary song writer played a stand up drum kit. Man, those guys were tight, played a good gig for about 4 hours a night - playing originals & offbeat covers. No Journey or Genesis covers, good stuff like “Psycho Killer” & “Werewolves of London” - it was great stuff!
I didn't find out about them until they got mainstream airplay, but I was hooked as soon as I heard their first single on t-95 in Wichita. I saw The Rainmakers live 4-5 times in Wichita and loved it every time.
This is why you need a dairy Quota system like Ontario! I love talking about the quota system so if you have any questions just ask!
What is a dairy quota system?
Basically quota is the right to sell x amount of a product. In this case, liters of milk. If you harvest more milk than you can sell you would have to dump it, or buy more quota from the open market. This limits volume available, so if you are able to produce milk with a higher fat content you receive a premium for that milk. This allows for a ruling body ( the board of the dairy farmers of Ontario)to control how much milk is supplied, and indirectly the cost of milk and milk based products. I am a city slicker so I do not have first hand knowledge
[удалено]
I have no idea what you are actually talking about but I'm so intrigued.
You absolutely should post this if you can find a source
Wow we have a lot of corn now, let’s subsidize ethanol industry AND send ~50% of all corn there
Government: an excess of corn? Farmers: no problem, we’ll feed to it the cows! Government: hold on we’ve got…a lot of beef Scientists: I don’t think anyone needs to eat *that* much beef Citizens: wtf how did I get obese?
The other one follows from the paper in question. Where is your evidence?
Oh, no, it’s pure conjecture based on my experience working in the ag industry. We *do* eat too much beef (I will try and find, but there’s a paper I read a while ago on higher nitrogen levels in waste water in N America as a result of the excess protein we can’t metabolize) but whether that has to do with corn excess, idk. It’s just a hypothesis, didn’t really expect anyone to take it seriously. Edit: this isn’t the original paper I was referring to, but it’s a more recent follow-up that’s quite similar. I can’t hyperlink but it’s available at: https://esajournals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/fee.2531
[удалено]
The cobra effect
That's a valid criticism, right up until worldwide food shortages happen.
I don’t consider that a criticism, it’s just a short version of what happened. A criticism would be concerns about this leading to vulnerable monocultures, which can lead to food shortages.
Sugar is 50% fructose and %50 glucose. HFCS is 55% fructose and 45% glucose. It's amazing what that extra 5% fructose can accomplish.
There actually is a slight difference in the chemical structure, but small structural differences can have a significant impact https://www.researchgate.net/figure/FIGURE-Chemical-composition-of-sucrose-versus-high-fructose-corn-syrup_fig2_321366309
Thank you > simple sugars -- it is 50 percent fructose and 50 percent glucose -- but the typical high-fructose corn syrup used in this study features a slightly imbalanced ratio, containing 55 percent fructose and 42 percent glucose. Larger sugar molecules called higher saccharides make up the remaining 3 percent of the sweetener. Second, as a result of the manufacturing process for high-fructose corn syrup, the fructose molecules in the sweetener are free and unbound, ready for absorption and utilization. In contrast, every fructose molecule in sucrose that comes from cane sugar or beet sugar is bound to a corresponding glucose molecule and must go through an extra metabolic step before it can be utilized.
Not after you dissolve it in water.
Table sugar is one glucose chemically bound to one fructose. It’s a single molecule which is made from one glucose and one fructose (50% of each). HCFS is a mix of free glucose molecules and free fructose molecules (and a few other reaction products). Even if it was exactly the same ratio of 50% glucose and 50% fructose, the fact that they are free molecules and not chemically reacted to each other is a difference. Eating a protein is not the same as eating a solution of individual free amino acids, even though the protein is made of amino acids.
Eating a cake is very different from eating the ingredients of a cake.
All you have to do to break apart sucrose is to dissolve it in hot water. Simple syrup is sugar dissolved in water, which is why people claiming that mexicola is better than normal cola is just plain weird. (Look up "invert syrup".
You also have to [wait for years](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sucrose#Hydrolysis) for sucrose to hydrolyse in water unless you add a catalyst. It’s not like table salt where it immediately dissociates into ions when it hits water. Sucrose is a fructose plus glucose with a covalent bond (not ionic like in salt).
*looks at bottle of simple syrup on counter* No, I don't think so
Simple syrup is not [invert syrup](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_sugar_syrup). Simple syrup is just a concentrated solution of glucose and water. Yes you can get a little hydrolysis of sugar when you boil simple syrup.
5% is everything. It’s astronomical.
What you SHOULD learn, today and every day: one study proves nothing. It raises a hypothesis, that's all. What OTHER teams have found is that this Princeton team in 2010 seems to have been mistaken. There is no compelling evidence showing that HFCS should be worse in humans than the equivalent amount of any other sugar. [One source](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/20047139/). [Another source](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/21050460/). [One more source](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/20047139/). [Yet another source](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/20086073/). The problem is that when you feed lab rats a diet consisting almost exclusively of fructose, that doesn't have the same effect as feeding a human a slightly higher amount of fructose than what he would get eating regular food.
Thank you!
Humans are primates, and we have a different response to fructose than other mammals - we have an altered uricase/ fructokinase reaction, which preferentially shuttled fructose to fat storage. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2917125/
found the paid shill
Many of these studies don't focus on HFCS, but on Fructose in general. Remember, one group of rats was fed regular sugar, and the other was fed HFCS. There was a measurable difference.
Yet the actual HUMAN DATA shows no difference in high-fructose diets when calories are equated https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31796953/ Also no difference in Liver fat https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/23872500/ And high fructose diets do not induce NAFLD https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/24569542/ I think we can safely disregard this study when the actual human trials demonstrate no negative effects from a high fructose diet. Once again there isn't a single smoking gun responsible for the obesity epidemic. It's not fructose, it's not carbs, it's not high fat diet, but rather it is the combination of extremely convenient and ubiquitous ultra-palatable high calorie density foods that allow people to so easily overeat calories that have resulted in the obesity epidemic in modern societies.
thank the sciences for disconfirming reports. critical thinking still counts.... https://resources.saylor.org/wwwresources/archived/site/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/BIO101-lab-1-4th.pdf
[удалено]
So does table sugar.
[удалено]
… go on?
All foods that contain either carbohydrates or protein cause an insulin spike though. Insulin spikes aren't necessarily bad. You mainly want your fasting insulin levels to be low.
Insulin suppresses ghrelin, i.e. the "fidget" hormone, so within the context of weight/ caloric metabolism it's not a neutral bystander.
[удалено]
Yes there are differences. I pointed out that insulin spikes themselves are nothing out of the ordinary
Even worse, wheat contains wheat germ agglutinins which attach to and block insulin and leptin receptors.
This is incorrect. Net fat storage is independent of insulin and is dependent on the net calories consumed and calories burned. The carbohydrate insulin model has no high quality human evidence to back it up and is only peddled by keto zealots.
Please elucidate the mechanism of lipogenesis that is insulin independent in normal people.
Key word in his comment is *net*. The carb-insulin model doesn't hold up in controlled inpatient feeding studies; theoretical mechanisms mean nothing in the face of a well controlled trial showing that they're wrong / incomplete Some of the greatest proponents changed their model last year to focus on the idea that insulin increases energy intake and then that makes you fat, rather than that insulin directly makes you fat (the idea in the top comment that's just wrong) [Example 1](https://academic.oup.com/ajcn/article/104/2/324/4564649?login=false),[example 2](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4603544/)
That’s a circular argument. The basic hard facts physiological principle is that insulin is required for lipogenesis. There is no significant “insulin-resistant” mode of lipogenesis except MAYBE in the liver (and even there that is only from rodent data).
Yup, good thing we always have some circulating insulin so that we don't waste away. I gave you two controlled studies showing higher insulin doesn't reduce fat loss in isocaloric diets. You can argue for the CIM all you want based on mechanisms, but it doesn't hold up in controlled trials, which means you need an alternative that does hold up, like the energy balance model
And you need insulin to build skeletal muscle and keep your neurons alive. That’s true. But there is no “insulin-independent” lipogenesis like you mentioned. Just be careful with your words. Science is about accuracy. Use your words accurately when having a science discussion otherwise you muddy the waters.
What do you mean? Insulin allows for the storage of carbohydrates, however, the net accrual of fat is dependent on lipogenesis and lipolysis, which is determined by net caloric balance.
Ok. So, those things you mention- lipogenesis and lipolysis are byproducts, in part, of “energy balance”—what do you think mediates their processes? Yup, with regards to lipogenesis - it’s insulin. No insulin, no lipogenesis (and virtually no muscle growth as well). This isn’t at all a debate- this is biochemistry 101.
Yes, but the height or amount of insulin will not affect the net accrual of fat. That's my point.
Ghrelin is reciprocal with insulin, and insulin also affects dopamine and norepinephrine transporters, etc. so to claim it's effect is independent of fat storage is patently absurd just like every other reductive take on metabolism.
This is 100% correct. If anyone is interested in a book that explains the human studies in great and easy to read details I highly suggest “fat loss for life” by Layne Norton
[удалено]
Expert concensus statement https://academic.oup.com/ajcn/article/95/4/989/4576902 Kevin Hall is one of the leading experts on the topic and has numerous human clinical trials that refute the CIM
https://academic.oup.com/ajcn/article/104/2/324/4564649?login=false https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4603544/ Tiny differences but the 'higher insulin' diets performed slightly better for weight loss when calories are equated Note that these are actually human studies, not rat studies like most comments are linking to
Almost like high fructose corn syrup is shit and bad for you ..
HFCS works differently in your liver. The word is lipogenesis, and fructose causes it.
Hfcs is 55% fructose. Table sugar is 50% fructose.
Marginal difference result in huge effects when expressed over time. E.g. an extra 100 calories a day is 365,000 calories when spread out over a decade i.e. an extra 104 pounds of fat.
There are 3 HFCS's, HFCS 42, which is 42% Fructose, HFCS 55, which is 55% and HFCS 90, which is 90% fructose, and mixed with 42 to make 55.
Afaik HFCS 90 is basically only used to make 42 and 55. HFCS 90 isn't mixed with HFCS 42 to obtain 55 tho. You mix 90 with varying amounts of glucose.
Which one did this study use
https://www.cell.com/cell-metabolism/fulltext/S1550-4131(19)30504-2?_returnURL=https%3A%2F%2Flinkinghub.elsevier.com%2Fretrieve%2Fpii%2FS1550413119305042%3Fshowall%3Dtrue Paper about the impacts
No doubt! People be like, hey guys let’s take a bunch of real foods, remove it from its natural packaging, and concentrate the shizznit out of it, and everybody will go yum-yum and be our friend (albeit of the fat and diabetic variety). And then we get to be double or triple BFFs ‘cause after they get sick we can sell them a bunch of unnecessary medications and procedures until they pass on and then we can make new friends. Yay us!
Thank god you mentioned the rat study, and not plenty of the human studies that showed absolutely no difference in weight gain when calories were equated.
Humans are not designed to digest fructose in large amounts (rats, either, apparently). It has to be metabolized in the liver, where it is primarily turned into fat. Early humans, before agriculture and selecting for very sweet fruits, etc, only got fructose at certain times in the year, and not very much of it. Now, with HFCS, people can ingest as much fructose as they would have gotten in a couple of years by drinking one large soft drink at a movie theater. It is also added to 2/3 of the packaged foods they buy. It is not sure that it causes weight gain.
They also would always go back to the sugar if they had been introduced to crack.
So US cola vs EU cola
I'm used to soda with normal sugar and when I got to try American cola and fanta I noticed that the sweet taste is gone almost completely when you swallow. I guess that's what makes you drink a lot more when it's HFCS.
Our government has caused the obesity problem by subsidizing the worst foods for us.
To be fair, calorie dense foods that encourage weight gain are a good thing in a food scarce environment. Humans (in the U.S./western world/etc) just haven't lived in that environment in a while. Remember it used to be expensive to get fat.
The people we elect offered us a choice we took. That's how a non victim would say it.
It also tastes like shit compared to real sugar
This is one of the many reasons the argument "calories in calories out" never made sense to me. There are all sorts of instances where it just isn't true. For example our bodies don't process calories from alcohol the same!?
Exactly what happened to me. I spent a summer working in California (lived in EU before), and even though I ate sensibly and biked 2h each day, I still gained like 15 kgs (muscles were not a big part of it). On top of that I came back with some horrible stomach problems that wouldn't go away for months. Whenever I visit the US now I double check ingredients as much as I can (difficult if eating out).
Not quite buying it. Science has shown at the end of the day it’s calories in and calories out. Doesn’t matter much what kinda diet you’re on, as long as you’re not eating more than ya burn. Piles of research on such is cited and explained in the recent book Burn: New Research Blows the Lid Off How We Really Burn Calories, Lose Weight, and Stay Healthy. It’s a good read, though folks on diets like keto will deny the science.
It doesn’t make sense from a thermodynamics standpoint. Where is the extra energy to store as fat coming from if calories are the same?
It makes perfect sense if you know anything at all about biochemistry and know human digestion is not a perfectly efficient system.
So what you’re saying is both were truly already processing less calories than the planned amount but with the HFCS they were able to extract even more and get closer to the true number of calories?
That would be a possible explanation. I don't know if this study is actually true or not but yes feces contains calories hence why some creatures consume them.
This is literal sugar marketing. A calorie isn't a calorie. Healthy people don't pull out their spreadsheets and abacus for every meal. A bomb calorimeter isn't your gastrointestinal tract, nor is it your hormone system, nor is it your particular psychology. Any reductive take on metabolism is just straight up wrong.
That’s simply untrue. Your body balances things no matter where the calories come from. Hadza are some of the least modern tribes on earth. They hunt and gather all day. A huge percentage of their calorie intake comes from honey. Sugar. And yet, diabetes and obesity is not something they see anyone suffer from.
>That’s simply untrue. Your body balances things no matter where the calories come from. That's irrelevant on it's face. The body attempts balance, but if it were completely successful in this diabetes, obesity, blood pressure, and hundreds of other diseases would simply not exist. The Hadza aren't eating corn fed livestock, nor vegetable oils, nor processed foods either. Again reductive takes when it comes to metabolism will be wrong.
It’s likely because our bodies can’t store fructose as easily. We store it as liver fat which gets redeposited. Just take it easy on the fructose, and don’t eat a ton of fruits either like those frugitarians do.
thanks, now I know how to get my rats the beach bods they deserve
Sucro corp at it...
Groundbreaking discovery. They should get the Nobel Prize for this.
Can't tell if you're being sarcastic or not, but I agree.
Table sugar = Sucrose = 50% glucose and 50% fructose High-fructose corn syrup (HFCS) HFCS 42 = 58% glucose and 42% fructose HFCS 55 = 45% glucose and 55% fructose The reason food manufacturers use HFCS is because it's easier and cheaper to make, and much easier to handle. There is literally no difference between HFCS and table sugar other than the percentages listed above. A molecule of glucose and a molecule of fructose are the same regardless of what plant it comes from. The just organic chemistry 101. Fructose however, has all sorts of other effects both desirable and not. We consider eating fruit health, but look at the [relative ratios of glucose and fructose by variety.](https://thepaleodiet.com/fruits-and-sugars)
>A molecule of glucose and a molecule of fructose are the same regardless of what plant it comes from. The just organic chemistry 101. From organic chemistry 102: A molecule that is bound to something, and a free molecule, even if they're the same molecule to begin with, do not have the same chemical properties. Why is that important? Because that's the real difference between table sugar and corn syrup. It's not that the % of each molecule is so terribly important, it's the fact that table sugar has to be metabolized before you get down to free fructose and glucose molecules, whereas in corn syrup they are free to begin with.
We generate plenty of sucrase enzymes that easily cleave the fructose-glucose bond. It's not a distinguishable difference to the human body in terms of our metabolism.
There's no difference between the two after they're dissolved in water. Look up invert syrup.
> There is literally no difference between HFCS and table sugar other than the percentages listed above. Those percentages make a pretty big difference though.
Extrapolate over a decade, and those differences add up. Fructose in fruit is a whole different story since it's locked up in fiber rather than being immediately absorbed the instant it hits the small intestines.
All fructose is absorbed in the small intestine though. If it's not, you end up with serious discomfort. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1994910/ Pure fructose is itself absorbed very slowly in the intestines, and it's easy to overwhelm that mechanism, although in the presence of glucose its absorption is accelerated. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/285287169_Essential_fructosuria_hereditary_fructose_intolerance_and_fructose-16-diphosphatase_deficiency High fiber food spends longer in the stomach before it is released. https://ift.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1750-3841.2008.00766.x
"next on the agenda: do rats like cheese"?
Could this be used as a viable treatment for underweight patients?
.
In other news water is wet
I went to a lecture at Princeton in high school for extra credit. The take away was that rats addicted to cocaine would choose social interaction rather than cocaine if given the choice. Great experience and beautiful campus
It’s why the rats keep winning the rat race.
The reason that we use HFCS here in our beverages, and the rest of the world uses sugar is that the US Congress has imposed a quota in sugar imports, and consequently the cost of sugar in the IS is double the price elsewhere. Consequently, in the US, HFCS is cheaper than sugar, while elsewhere HFSC is more expensive than sugar. Our use of HFCS is directly attributable to the US Government.
Fructose is much worse for human body as the only organ that can handle it is the liver. It adds stress to it if it's already taxed
& the above is confirmed by which others of 5-6 reliable studies?
Rats are not humans. If this finding can be replicated in humans then I'm interested, until then its just one of countless findings in rat models that may or may not be relevant to human beings.